🔗 Share this article

The accusation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has misled UK citizens, scaring them into accepting massive additional taxes which could be funneled into increased benefits. While exaggerated, this is not typical political sparring; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a mess". Today, it's denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a grave charge demands clear responses, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available information, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the considerations informing her decisions. Was this all to channel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? No, and the numbers prove it.

A Standing Sustains A Further Blow, Yet Truth Must Win Out

Reeves has sustained another hit to her reputation, however, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is far stranger compared to media reports suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account about how much say you and I get over the running of the nation. And it should worry you.

Firstly, to the Core Details

When the OBR released recently a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Consider the government's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated it would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK had become less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, this is essentially what transpired during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have made other choices; she might have provided alternative explanations, even during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it is a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not one the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be paying an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, over 50% of this extra cash will instead provide Reeves a buffer for her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were too small for comfort, especially given that lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see why those folk with red rosettes might not couch it in such terms when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets to act as a tool of discipline against her own party and the electorate. It's the reason Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent from this is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,